Sam Darnold's "Style of Ball"

[kungfoodude]

5 hours ago, Fox007 said:

Yea he's fantastic. Its also worth pointing out that Alex Smith took that team to the AFC Championship game. KC has weapons that are second to none and one of the best offensive HC ever...fist ballot HoFer....goes back to a previous post of mine in here. System matters and everyone is a system player.

Doesn't mean Darnold will pan out but it also means it isn't just Mahommes and he couldn't just go anywhere and light it up like people are so quick to say about all sorts of players when it simply isn't true.  IF he had been the QB on the Jets we'd be calling him a bust...I mean hell he was the QB of the Jets in the SB when his OL played like the Jets OL...53%comp and 2 ints 0 TD...270yds. No one plays well getting pressured on over half of their drop backs 

More than in years past it seems people are getting second chances as the old school way has given to the younger generation that are now coaches and such it never was so simple but the old guard of a particular way of thinking has been getting replaced. I'm glad Mahommes got to go to KC and play with Reid and I'm glad people are getting second chances instead of being scapgoats for poo HCs like Jeff Fisher and what happened with Vince Young for example.

The difference is that in almost every case these "second chance" QB's are given not just a second but third and fourth chances as they bounce around the league as backups. Yet, none of them ever ascend to being an elite starter even when they are in good scenarios. 

And that is ultimately the point I am making. While the situation plays a significant role, the player is the biggest portion of that. Some of these guys would be successful no matter where they are, it would only matter how successful they were. 

The QB you are describing is a game managing QB. Like Trent Dilfer or Joe Flacco. You need a phenomenal team that basically can win if you just don't fug it up. Deshaun Watson came into arguably the worst coaching scenario possible in the NFL and has played phenomenally, despite having a dipshit coach and a supporting cast that has gotten worse every year. He has never struggled the way Darnold has. 

This is the core of the disagreement. Nature versus nurture. I think nature is the prevailing factor because the bulk of the nurturing has already happened. You believe otherwise. 

We'll see soon enough.

[Mr. Scot]

11 hours ago, frankw said:

If you don't like the discussion involving inconvenient truths perhaps you should start your own Panthers community. Of course that would require you to form an original thought that does not involve tearing down others contributions.

People's opinions are not "truths".

[kungfoodude]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

People's opinions are not "truths".

You don't think his performance to date is the truth? How very Q-Anon of you.

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

You don't think his performance to date is the truth? How very Q-Anon of you.

I think his results to date have been bad. That's a fair statement.

Now, whether the problem was coaching, Darnold himself or the team around him is a matter of opinion. So is how he's going to perform from here.

That, plus in general way too many people frame their opinions as "fact" and "truth" when they really are just opinions.

[glenwo2]

10 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

This is kind of why most of the skeptics or people with doubts don't listen to the majority of the homers. You guys literally cannot make logical arguments to support your position. You make emotional arguments. You want a great example of how to make a supportive post? Look at @SBBlue's great post from today. 

This is actually a good, supportive argument based on statistics and facts not some whiny, bitching about how you don't like the way people think because it isn't what you want to hear.

First off, I loved his well-thought-out argument and the stats he brought.   

There was never any complaint about it.

Second, your post (the bolded part) with the whole holier-than-thou bullsh*t is why I have you on Ignore and I curse myself for deciding to view your post for some reason.    That won't happen again.

Edited May 27, 2021 by glenwo2

[glenwo2]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

I think his results to date have been bad. That's a fair statement.

Now, whether the problem was coaching, Darnold himself or the team around him is a matter of opinion. So is how he's going to perform from here.

That, plus in general way too many people frame their opinions as "fact" and "truth" when they really are just opinions.

Holy poo.   Did he just say Q-Anon?    How is that not a Troll post?  

[CRA]

I basically judge Sam based off of 2019.  Not a rookie.  Org not in full tank mode.

he went 7-9 with a really bad team.  We have gone 7-9 or worse with better teams around a QB.   So that's the Sam hope. 

[LinvilleGorge]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

I think his results to date have been bad. That's a fair statement.

Now, whether the problem was coaching, Darnold himself or the team around him is a matter of opinion. So is how he's going to perform from here.

That, plus in general way too many people frame their opinions as "fact" and "truth" when they really are just opinions.

History is largely fact based, predictions of the future are almost entirely opinion. It's a fact that Darnold has been a bad starting QB through three seasons. A legit argument can be made that he's been the worst starting QB in the NFL over the last three seasons. Everything else about his potential play here is almost entirely opinion. Meanwhile, we have the pie in the sky holier than though homer crowd trying to claim fan superiority by engaging in mental gymanstics on how and why Darnold is going to be so much better here (even though Teddy wasn't) while their only response to the people who aren't exactly sold on that line of thinking boils down to

 

[Sgt Schultz]

For me, here's the rub.....the jury is out on the guy.

Sure, his performance to date has not been good.  The problem is that performance was on a poorly constructed, poorly coached team with a guy running the show that would not even allow audibles.  I'm not sure I can draw many conclusions from that.  Put Mahomes in that environment and the jury might be out on him, too. 

But, we know the history of reclamation projects under center.  That is not on his side.  When it works out, it can work out big.  Most of the time, you wind up with a marginal starter or okay backup.  The worst do not get a second chance.

Rhule and company looked at Darnold and felt that they could develop him into something.  I think they are hoping for something similar to what they expected from Bridgewater: a bridge while they find who they really want and maybe wind up being that guy in their offensive scheme.

Had Teddy thrown downfield more, we would not be having this discussion.  Had Darnold been bad with the Chargers, Vikings, Dolphins, or any one of about 24 other teams, we may not be having this discussion, either.  But he was bad on a horrible team with an idiot for a HC.  That leaves a lot of variables open.

Or, as kungfoodude said earlier, we'll know soon enough.  I doubt it will be in September, but by November we should have a decent barometer.

[Mr. Scot]

27 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

History is largely fact based, predictions of the future are almost entirely opinion. It's a fact that Darnold has been a bad starting QB through three seasons. A legit argument can be made that he's been the worst starting QB in the NFL over the last three seasons. Everything else about his potential play here is almost entirely opinion. Meanwhile, we have the pie in the sky holier than though homer crowd trying to claim fan superiority by engaging in mental gymanstics on how and why Darnold is going to be so much better here (even though Teddy wasn't) while their only response to the people who aren't exactly sold on that line of thinking boils down to

 

Your first comment in this thread was to call people who are optimistic that he could be better "delusional". So who's trying to sound "superior" here?

As mentioned, some of us are just open to the possibility that maybe he can be better. 

[Mr. Scot]

10 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

For me, here's the rub.....the jury is out on the guy.

Sure, his performance to date has not been good.  The problem is that performance was on a poorly constructed, poorly coached team with a guy running the show that would not even allow audibles.  I'm not sure I can draw many conclusions from that.  Put Mahomes in that environment and the jury might be out on him, too. 

But, we know the history of reclamation projects under center.  That is not on his side.  When it works out, it can work out big.  Most of the time, you wind up with a marginal starter or okay backup.  The worst do not get a second chance.

Rhule and company looked at Darnold and felt that they could develop him into something.  I think they are hoping for something similar to what they expected from Bridgewater: a bridge while they find who they really want and maybe wind up being that guy in their offensive scheme.

Had Teddy thrown downfield more, we would not be having this discussion.  Had Darnold been bad with the Chargers, Vikings, Dolphins, or any one of about 24 other teams, we may not be having this discussion, either.  But he was bad on a horrible team with an idiot for a HC.  That leaves a lot of variables open.

Or, as kungfoodude said earlier, we'll know soon enough.  I doubt it will be in September, but by November we should have a decent barometer.

Perfectly reasonable take...

[LinvilleGorge]

21 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Oh lawd, it's last off-season all over again. Any suggestion that our new QB who has historically been bad may not necessarily dramatically improve in the nirvana that is the Carolina Panthers under world leading guru Joe Brady is utter nonsense. I see that last year's results in that arena didn't sway any convictions. A.k.a some people are delusional.

 

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Your first comment in this thread was to call people who are optimistic that he could be better "delusional". So who's trying to sound "superior" here?

As mentioned, some of us are just open to the possibility that maybe he can be better. 

See above for my actual first post in this thread. You sure do love to try to paint people into black and white corners while acting like you have no opinion but oddly enough vociferously arguing against certain viewpoints.

My point is simple. Sam Darnold has been bad. We're banking on him making a dramatic improvement. The history of guys suddenly making a dramatic improvement with a change of scenery isn't good. That's just being realistic. Were betting on long odds here. But sure, keep doing the same mental gymanstics people did last year to convince themselves that Joe Brady was going to wave a magic wand and transform Teddy into an elite QB. I HOPE it happens with Darnold but it's highly unlikely. 

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

 

See above for my actual first post in this thread. You sure do love to try to paint people into black and white corners while acting like you have no opinion but oddly enough vociferously arguing against certain viewpoints.

My point is simple. Sam Darnold has been bad. We're banking on him making a dramatic improvement. The history of guys suddenly making a dramatic improvement with a change of scenery isn't good. That's just being realistic. Were betting on long odds here. But sure, keep doing the same mental gymanstics people did last year to convince themselves that Joe Brady was going to wave a magic wand and transform Teddy into an elite QB. I HOPE it happens with Darnold but it's highly unlikely. 

See Sgt. Schultz' post above for a much better take.

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

See Sgt. Schultz' post above for a much better take.

He's saying the same thing I am, he's just being more careful with y'all's dainty little feelings while doing it.